![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Power Corrupts
Power doesn’t corrupt. It’s people making stupid choices and letting themselves be lead around by the nose which corrupts them. What’s a stupid choice? Something that isn’t win/win for all involved parties and from which there is no effective “next move.” Everyone pays for the decisions they make, no matter what.
The saying, “Live by the sword, die by the sword” is not, therefore, an admonishment to stay away from swords, but to make sure that you’re actually living and to take responsibility for the consequences of your actions. The terminal point of all living is death, so don’t sit around avoiding life and being a pussy because of that.
Articles With Similar Themes:
- Some anarquist quotes my friend sent me
- How to Fight the Empire and Win
- Is Knowledge Power?
- San Francisco to Harness the Power of Poop
- Now Liberals Want to Trick People Too
- Prev: Seattle, In Retrospect
- Next: Help A Brother Out
January 20th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Who’s “them” in this sentnce? The leaders or the people? Are you saying leaders are corrupted by leading stupid people?
January 20th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I read it as ourselves (not leaders) are corrupted by allowing ourselves to be pushed around by leaders we have no respect or disagree with.
Even if my interpretation is wrong, I sincerely believe it.
The last job I held involved working with people who would constantly bitch and moan about management and the soul destroying nature of the work. Both valid beefs, but many had been working in the same job for years.
As Tim’s post highlights, they were letting themselves be lead around by the nose. They were corrupted because they no longer had any personal sovereignty. The very same corruption was starting to bloom inside me too so I got the hell out of there….
As much as it pains me to admit this, I think we (the people) do help facilitate the corruption of our leaders by indulging in the whole spectacle of their rise to power. It’s a symbiotic, mutual corruption society!
January 20th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I think the expression is “Power corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts absolutely” I don’t know who first said it, but its taken pretty much dogmatically and as an article of faith in liberal circles.
I am interested in hearing alternate takes on it, but I am not sure what Tim is saying.
I think the expression is bogus. If my car has no power its corrupt, not if it has power.
I think if there were people wise enough to rule, they should have absolute power. The trouble is that 100% wise people don’t exist.
But there are definately some people wiser than others. So it stands to reason some people should have more power to rule than others. Just not absolute power to rule.
But power itself doesn’t corrupt.
January 20th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
symbiotic? no doubt. we do get the leaders/bosses we need/deserve. life is therapy…..especially if we are paying attention.
maslow`s heirarchy of needs describes our needs for food, fuel and shelter as a foundation for the higher forms of human need/consciousness. this necessitates the aquisition of the j.o.b. to meet those needs, and the inherent necessity to interface with all manner of soul-sucking predators as a result.
those of us who manage to exist in a self-employed mode can avoid the majority of these entities who wish to control us, and therefore maintain soveriegnty over our existance in one form or another.
living at the bottom of a well created by media that describes a utopian existance of everything from sex to diefication via consumerism is bound to create a mechanism whereby we prostitute ourselves on a daily basis.
this is a corruption that most are killing themselves to get at, and one that the self-promoter struggles with.
January 20th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
and there is an assumption that power is power over others. what about self-control?
the wisest of us want nothing to do with the control of anything, least of all others.
January 20th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Did you know that is Leo Strausses position? I’ve been reading him again. Rule by Philosopher Kings is impossible. He argued for the next best thing. Which is a mixed regime of aristocracy and democracy.
The advantage of having aristocrats rule is that unlike the wise, they desire to rule.
I think the problem with mass democracy should be readily apparent. The problem is most people don’t have the power to rule themselves. All the messes with industrial society have been freely chosen by the masses.
January 20th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
hmm. didn`t know that. my views as posted come from a process of personal withdrawal from control on all levels as part of my own development and that of my practice in helping others sort thier lives out.
the media wants us to consume this will-to-control as sport, blinding our eyes with politics, war and movie stars…….all hungry for bits of media and our eyeballs.
so that we will buy things, vote and become little dictarors in our own fiefdoms.
it`s fucking tiresome, and some want off the un-merry-go-round.
i will check out leo strauss.
they turn to religion, medication, alcohol, porn etc. to try to switch the noise off.
what they don`t realise is that the same media that they use to search for answers is the delivery system for thier illness in the first place.
January 20th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Some great insights Ted and Alistair.
To re purpose Leo’s words via Ted - I wonder what human existence would look like if each individual had a healthy, internal “mixed regime of aristocracy and democracy”?
It seems like we constantly come back to the idea that some will be drones, some workers, etc, etc. Hell, even Jerry Seinfeld’s animated Bee Movie pushed this message.
If as Ted seems to indicate (please feel free to correct my perception Ted) we need an overarching principle of benevolent aristocracy in the external world, why can we not all apply the same principle to ourselves, internally?
Perhaps I am just playing Utopian, mental games with myself.
January 20th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
well, we can do that for ourselves, but we need role models…….especially in our youth.
it goes back to the integrity of the community.
for fear of sounding like a neo-con, strong leadership provides a basis for a willing particpation from the community.
garrett hardin points out that communities of larger than 150 or so members tend toward a dissipation of such ideals.
what creeps in is a goldbricking behaviour that takes advantage of the simple fact that nobody is watching the hen-house.
in light of what i`ve just infered, i don`t hold much hope for a society of several hundred million people unable to keep an eye on any hen-house other than thier own, which they`re no longer allowed to administrate.
government spending coupled with government self-survival means that the more of our money “it” gets, the more it spends to further protect “it`s self” from us.
the internal regime of aristocracy and democracy is all that we have left tim.
it`s the only hen-house we can watch.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:35 am
> If my car has no power its corrupt, not if it has power.
This is good. If my car has power, that power can enable me to act. If my car has no power, I find it exerts a different power over me. It can make me feel angry and helpless. It can focus my mind on fixing it to the exclusion of all else. I become dependent on its whims. This is the kind of corruption that comes from power. There’s a very fine line between enabling power and corrupting power and it’s not always in our gift to distinguish them.
*
As for systems of government: it’s worth exploring the aftermath of the English Civil War, where it was agreed (loosely!) that the monarch should have absolute power (by the grace of God, as it says on the coins) but agree to exercize none of it, and to delegate it all to the government. The government should exercize power, but should possess none of its own. There’s threads in this about trust, and about the exercize of one’s own power vs. power from a higher source.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:43 am
> Live by the sword …
Shakespeare:
‘No, sir, I live by the church.’
http://shakespeare.mit.edu/twelfth_night/twelfth_night.3.1.html
January 21st, 2008 at 11:42 am
Alistair:
I recommend “The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism:an introduction to the thought of Leo Strauss” It is a group of essays and lectures by Leo Strauss selected by Thomas L Prangle.
There isn’t really anything online as far as I have found thats not a skewed charicature of Strauss ideas, by his critics.
January 21st, 2008 at 8:49 pm
I think that power facilitates the exposure of individual’s corruption;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
Stanford prison experiment
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:15 am
trust.
we have lawyers now, so we don`t have to.
when i was a child i realised that our queen was a sort of meta-mother that we loved unconditionally and would honour in the same way.
an agreement to have absolute power, but to agree not to use it.
to kneel before her and allow her the position of delivering that fatal blow.
the highest honour a knight can receive.
unconditional love.
and ted, thanks for the suggestion regarding strauss.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:26 am
[…] January 22, 2008 by cadeveo Tim Boucher’s got a new micro-post up in regards to the old saw that goes “Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.” […]
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I feel like nobody knows Leo Strauss like I know him. Its amazing how many people have somthing to say about him and have never read him directly.
He actually wrote back in the 1960’s that technology is destroying our humanity. But he didn’t say it as a torch bearer for some cause, he just acknowledged it as a fact that wise people all realize. The thing that most kind of bohemian types don’t realize is that you can’t take mainstream democrats views on Leo Strauss, seriously. Because mainstream democrats are as out of touch with reality as mainstream republicans.
Progressivism is bankrupt. Thinking People have kind of lost faith in progress. Strauss knew this in the 1950’s.
The last word in philosophy is existentialism. Before that Neitzsche declared God is dead. The thing people are realizing now is that Science and by extension technology are also dead. That’s because rationalism is dead. Its reached its limit. Strauss was aware of this over 30 years ago.
He wasn’t gung ho about Big Bussiness and Republican Politics. He was just interested in preserving a way of life for there to be philosophers. He wanted to preserve some semblence of liberal democracy. In that sense he was a pragmatist.
He had kind of a glimmer of what might come after existentialism. But he didn’t consider himself a philosopher. Philosophers need to live a retired contemplative life of seeking truth. True philosophers don’t desire to get involved in politics, but somtimes they need to. The highest things aren’t the same as what is most urgent.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I guess here is the point, in relation to this post about Power and corruption. Most people don’t want to take a cold hard look at the implications of power and human nature.
But if you do you may want to consider reading Leo Strauss. And you won’t neccesarily come to the same conclusions as William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz.